In The News - Part 2

[Das_Funked]

New thread...

[JamesMadison]

.Well I have never heard of "prima facie evidence" but I have heard of Prima Facie case or Prima facie.

Essentially one has a "prima facie case" if the evidence is sufficient to prove their claim and the elements of their claim.

Lets use an example. JB the outspoken and charismatic partner of Ralp Nader attack a pro-capitalism rally. JB calls all of the members to the rally greedy, non-environmentalist, egotistical, exploitive *******s and incapable of loving anything but money. Adam Smith, the rally speaker, retorts by calling JB a staunch "pinko" and direct descendent of Karl Marx. JB strikes at Adam Smith with his fist and lands three blows on his face.

Adam Smith then institutes an intention battery tort action. The elements of batter are:

1. Contact with the individual or an extension of the individual which is
2. Harmful or offensive
3. with Intent. Intent is defined as Purpose to perform the act which results in contact or knowledge to a substantial certainty the conduct would result in the contact.

We have contact has JB has struck Adam Smith in the fact with his fists. The contact is harmful and we have intent because JB swung at Adam Smith with the purpose of hitting him.

So based on this evidence it can be said Adam Smith has proven his "prima facie" case of battery. The evidence is sufficient to prove each element of the intentional tort of battery which is to say Smith has met his burden in proving the elements of his batter claim.

Hearsay evidence is a little more complicated and I will speak to this later.

[JamesMadison]

Das Funked tell me the purpose of placing individuals in prisons? It is to deter crime correct? It is to deter individuals from committing futher criminal acts correct?

Don't inmates have a as much a right to be protected from harm as those in society? Certainly they do and simply adding another 100 years on a 1000 year sentence they will never serve does not deter a murderer from murdering again. This is the purpose of the death penalty. To keep the individual from committing the crime again. If the individual is dead, then he can't kill any longer.

So quite obviously there are other purposes to the death penalty than those you noted. One purpose is to deter the criminal from killing again and if they are dead they can't kill again. So there is a deterrence element to the death penalty.

So lets try this again. If the purpose of detaining people, and depriving them of their liberty, a human right, is permissible to protect individuals, deterrence, then why can't the depravation of life, a human right, also be allowed as this has the effect of deterring the individual from committing the crime again.

[Whisper]

And quite possibly detering others from committing the same crime.

And I find it amazing how Krogener defended the US for that Mazar-i-Sharif thing...and DF immediately said it was because of differing religions...

Seriously, what's with the Race Card? Can we not just argue on FACTS, not POSSIBILITIES. And Opinions based upon FACTS rather than feelings? Hell, I FEEL the Death Penalty is wrong....but I KNOW, for the above reasons that it's a necessary evil. I FEEL that Abortion should not exist, but I Know that there are circumstances where it's right (Rape, mother's life in danger.). SO let's stick to ONE arguement (DF is better than JB in that.) and base it on definate facts rather than "Well, this guys cousin's wife said he knows a guy who saw a guy that said he saw one of the guys with a US Flag on his arm...." (And, really...let's stay away from French "evidence"...heh)

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to get som McDonald's. Support the economy of my 'eeeeeeevil' capitalistic society.

[Krogenar]

In other News...

News agencies are reporting accounts of North Korea's prison camps and the atrocities being performed on approximately 200,000 men, women and children. Here's the link to the story:

North Korea is One Gigantic Gulag (http://msnbc.com/news/859191.asp)

These prisoners are being held in concentration camps reminiscent of the Nazi camps. Anyone who makes even a 'bland' political statement against socialism is sent to one of these concentration camps. Not only are you sent to the camp, but 'three generations' of your family will also be sent with you! Abortions are forced upon pregnant women, so that future generations of dissidents will be 'eradicated'.

I could go on, but, just examine the link above.
Since the moral depravity is on par (or maybe even greater) with that of Saddam Hussein's regime, can there still be any doubt that these nations can be considered 'evil'? Or is that too 'black and white'?

Scary stuff in that article - and a pattern has become clear throughout history: you are far more likely to have your civil rights taken from you if you speak out against socialism, than if you speak out against capitalism. Capitalist societies seem to treat their dissidents with much, much greater care. The vast majority of homocidal tyrants it seem, have been communists or socialists. Knowing this, it seems a sad wonder that these bloody, useless, failed ideologies have any remaining supporters. Capitalism, however, steams ever onwards, generating wealth, and freedom for the most people.

[JediBendu]

I wonder what the prisoners in Guatemala (sp?) are thinking after a year of torturous internment without a single charge being laid?
and no they are not all 'prisoners of war' with 400 coming from Pakistan (including ozis and poms, which are being denied access to their respective governments) after Afghanistan was 'finished'

Your defense of your own war crimes is similar to Slobodon's defense in the Haig right now "I didn't order them to do it, they were acting on their own accord, there's no proof".
I suppose we're just going to have to wait till an inquiry is held, the EU asking the Int. Red Cross to begin procedures, I'd say a few other Int. Human Rights groups would also be getting involved by now.
that is of course until the evidence is 'mysteriously' destroyed, as many of the witnesses now seem to be.

http://www.leestreet.com/dan/counterheg/ne...letter/034.html (http://www.leestreet.com/dan/counterheg/newsletter/034.html)

Now if you want to discuss some of the flaws of capitalism

I made numerous offers which have (again) been ignored, but what do you think when you walk past the end product of capitalism - the homeless?

Do a Google search using - Cambodia "GAP NIKE" bbc
if your able to stomach the truth behind global capitalism then I'll discuss possible solutions, I'm not interested in debating whether or not it's actually happening, I removed my head from the sand a long time ago.

Isn't it true, JediBendu, that after you make a ridiculous statement that is quickly proven to be wrong-headed, you backpedal and claim that it was all a big joke

do you even know who Nietzsche is?
it wasn't a joke although I am certainly laughing at you - your response was as expected, I'm wondering whether such amorality stems from economic rationalism? a million people surely has more value than a single soul? that is your utilitarianist view is it not?

[JediBendu]

This is the purpose of the death penalty. To keep the individual from committing the crime again. If the individual is dead, then he can't kill any longer.

so locking someone in a cell for the rest of their life obviously means they'll have the opportunity to commit the act again?
deterence - stats prove you wrong my friend - the incidents of violent crime has gone through the roof over there. You've got school kids becoming mass killers for godsake!

[JediBendu]

Capitalism, however, steams ever onwards, generating wealth, and freedom for the most people.

until we hit that great bloody brick wall that's in front of us, then all the wealth generated for the very, very few will be worthless

[JediBendu]

So lets try this again. If the purpose of detaining people, and depriving them of their liberty, a human right, is permissible to protect individuals, deterrence, then why can't the depravation of life, a human right, also be allowed as this has the effect of deterring the individual from committing the crime again.

who are you to make that call?

and again, stats don't side with the deterrence argument

[JediBendu]

sorry, multiple topics again :dunce:

topic is Capital Punishment

all others will be dealt with after this abhorrent act has been concluded style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Whisper]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Jan 16 2003, 10:39 PM
I wonder what the prisoners in Guatemala (sp?) are thinking after a year of torturous internment without a single charge being laid?
and no they are not all 'prisoners of war' with 400 coming from Pakistan (including ozis and poms, which are being denied access to their respective governments) after Afghanistan was 'finished'

Your defense of your own war crimes is similar to Slobodon's defense in the Haig right now "I didn't order them to do it, they were acting on their own accord, there's no proof".

I believe you mean Guantanamo.

sn't that the Hague?

[JediBendu]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
back to the pub for me then!

[Darth Fabulous]

The two of you are using the word deterence differently. JB, you are saying that the death penalty is not a deterent for other criminals, and statistics show you are right. JamesMadison was saying that the death penalty is a deterent for the individual who committed the crime. As much as you would like to, you can't really argue with that as the convict would be dead and committing a crime posthumously is rather difficult.

[Das_Funked]

Don't inmates have a as much a right to be protected from harm as those in society?

Of course they do. That is why they have armed guards and around the clock security. They are probably more protected then people outside of prisons.

This is the purpose of the death penalty. To keep the individual from committing the crime again.

So what your saying is they give them the death penalty so they can't commit a crime they might do? Are you for real?

So lets try this again. If the purpose of detaining people, and depriving them of their liberty, a human right, is permissible to protect individuals, deterrence, then why can't the depravation of life, a human right, also be allowed as this has the effect of deterring the individual from committing the crime again.

As I said, you are killing a man because he might commit a crime again. Is that how you sentence people in America? Convict them of crimes they might commit?

If they are given the death penalty because they might kill again, do you arrest every gang member because they might kill someone? Or steal a car? Or arrest every stockbroker because they might be involved in insider trading?

You can't punish someone for crimes they have not commited. Your concept is flawed.

[Das_Funked]

And quite possibly detering others from committing the same crime.

For you to draw a conclusion like that makes it painfully obvious you haven't seen the statistics on the death penalty.

The figures have been rising steadily for about 30 years.

Here's a link - US Capital Punishment Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm)

[Das_Funked]

sn't that the Hague?

Don't you mean isn't?

[Krogenar]

that is of course until the evidence is 'mysteriously' destroyed, as many of the witnesses now seem to be.

*bows* I called it! In the last thread I posted that Doran (the producer of the 'Massacre at Mazar' film) would (after no evidence could be found linking American involvement) declare that 'the evidence has mysteriously vanished!' - instead... JediBendu has used the same tactic in this thread.

Now if you want to discuss some of the flaws of capitalism

I made numerous offers which have (again) been ignored, but what do you think when you walk past the end product of capitalism - the homeless?

I think a discussion of capitalism requires a new thread.

Isn't it true, JediBendu, that after you make a ridiculous statement that is quickly proven to be wrong-headed, you backpedal and claim that it was all a big joke

do you even know who Nietzsche is?

I know who Nietzsche is. I have a T-shirt with two quotes on it, that reads:

"God is dead." -Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead." -God

Nietzsche is best known for his concept of nihilism, if I recall correctly. You seem to be a fan of Nietzsche, JediBendu, so I went through the trouble of brushing up on the man myself. Here's a link about Nietzsche, where I found it on the stanford.edu server (I'll discuss the importance of that in a moment):

Nietzsche's Influence on Twentieth Century Thought (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#7)

A quote from it, for those unwilling to click:

During the last decade of Nietzsche's life and the first decade of the 20th century, his thought was particularly attractive to avant-garde artists who saw themselves on the periphery of established social fashion and practice. Here, Nietzsche's advocacy of new, healthy beginnings, and of creative artistry in general stood forth. His tendency to seek explanations for commonly-accepted values and outlooks in the less-elevated realms of sheer animal instinct was also crucial to Sigmund Freud's development of psychoanalysis.

Translation: Neitzsche is well liked by coffee house types, who wear little black berets. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif And his concepts insist that all human endeavor, no matter how grand it claims to be, is really just a reflection of man's inner beastiality. We're all just apes. How inspiring! But wait, JediBendu isn't alone in his praise of Neitzsche. This philiosopher had some other big fans. Another quote from that link:

Later, during the 1930's, aspects of Nietzsche's thought were espoused by the Nazis and Italian Fascists, partly due to the encouragement of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche through her solicitations with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. It was possible for the Nazi interpreters to assemble, quite selectively, various passages from Nietzsche's writings whose juxtaposition appeared to justify war, aggression and domination for the sake of nationalistic and racial self-glorification.

Now, the case could easily be made that Hitler 'twisted' Nietzsche's words and ideas to suit his own purposes. That's very possible, and could be the case. But it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Nietzsche either.

Next, let's tackle the link you posted. The information posted at that link didn't seem to coincide with the information I had seen on other sites and sources, so I 'backtracked' through the web URL and discovered that the site is run off of an apartment rental website! Not exactly the best source for news and information!:roll:

CNN? Nah! I get my news from Richard's Office Supply Depot! *cackles* To be fair, if you don't go back as far as the root of the link (Lee Street Apartment Rentals, in sunny Chicago, Illinois, click on 'Information' to contact a sales rep!) you'll find the 'source' for JediBendu's news and information:

Counter Hegemony - News for the Everyday Struggle! (http://www.leestreet.com/dan/counterheg/)

A quote from the opening page:

Welcome to the newsletter. I'll start by explaining the name: CounterHeg. CounterHeg is hipster lingo for Counter Hegemony, which is precisely the nature of the news I'll be listing here. It is not the whole picture, it does not claim to be an objective picture, but it is a challenging picture. This is not The Truth, but it is not The Lie either. It embraces its subjectivity, its constraints, and uses every tool available to tell a different story.

I'm sorry... I need to catch.. my breath!
Now that I've had my first taste of 'hipster lingo' I don't think I'll ever be the same. Also, I like the CounterHegemony's mission statement, concerning not having any mission. 'We're not 'The Lie' and we're not 'The Truth' ...' we're flavorless pudding. :roll:
I just can't stop laughing! I invite everyone to visit this website, and laugh with me.

it wasn't a joke although I am certainly laughing at you - your response was as expected, I'm wondering whether such amorality stems from economic rationalism? a million people surely has more value than a single soul? that is your utilitarianist view is it not?

What the heck? First you stated the question seriously, then told me it was all a joke, now you're asking to explain myself again? I've slipped into a deadly rhetorical game of cat-and-mouse! *eyes tear up from laughter* Oh, geez! Laugh at me all you want JediBendu.

Yes. I contend that 1 million souls are of greater importance (relatively) to a single human soul. And if I were in the horrible, unwanted position of having to decide, I would decide to sacrifice 1 soul for a million. Explain how utilitarianism (which I agree with) is so horrible? Utilitarianism posits that when deciding if a certain action is 'morally right', the good of the whole should be considered - that is, that we should maximize (or 'super-size' to borrow from McDonald's) the happiness of humanity as a whole. So, to cause harm to any single sentient being must be weighed against the welfare of the others. *psst* (whispers): "JediBendu... now would be a good time to go on a tangent!"

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Whisper+Jan 16 2003, 11:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Whisper @ Jan 16 2003, 11:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-JediBendu@Jan 16 2003, 10:39 PM
I wonder what the prisoners in Guatemala (sp?) are thinking after a year of torturous internment without a single charge being laid?

Whisper:I believe you mean Guantanamo.

sn't that the Hague?[/b][/quote]
Wrong Whisper! Didn't you read the CounterHeg newsletter? All of Guatemala has now become an American concentration camp! Maybe the editor had to show an apartment to someone, that may have delayed him from publishing that story. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Darth Fabulous@Jan 17 2003, 12:02 AM
The two of you are using the word deterence differently.
Fab is right. There's deterence for the criminal, and deterence for other people, considering committing a crime.

I also think we need someone to become 'Darth Robert', so we can have a 'Rob and Fab' get together, sort of like Milli Vanilli. Fab, do you have dreadlocks by any chance?

[Darth Fabulous]

I also think we need someone to become 'Darth Robert', so we can have a 'Rob and Fab' get together, sort of like Milli Vanilli. Fab, do you have dreadlocks by any chance?

Most definately not.

[Whisper]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Jan 17 2003, 08:59 AM
sn't that the Hague?

Don't you mean isn't?
Yes...I just didn't feel like editing...

[Jedi Kum-ahK]

Krogenar, you really take up plenty space, don't you.
Let me also say something!
I don't really have too much of an opinion on CP in the US, because I don't live there, but I can tell you that the only time we had CP in our history ( I come from Ghana) actually being carried out en masse was between 1979 and 1993, and I can tell you, it has still left scars. Some people are still sentenced to death, but it is never carried out. However, we have been battling with the menace of armed robbery for some time now, and sometimes the citizens are inclined to catch the robbers themselves. And when they do catch them.....my oh my I can tell you about a bunch they caught recently and beat them up so mercilessly, the police had to protect them from the mob. And I bet you, none of them wil never, ever, ever think of doing that again! I am not a supporter of instant justice or mob justice, but I'm sur it was a deterrent to all others ( at least for some time to come).
Now,taking a look at Nigeria, which in my opinion is very wild country (remember Miss World) most armed robbers and other hardened criminals are mostly put up against the wall and shot. But I think there they need that kind of thing. I can say that the more democratic a society becomes, the less acceptable CP becomes. But some peope will always advocate it.
I don't believe ther is any kind of homogenoeus environment where you can summarily say: CP is good here, and it isn' t good somewhere else. And from what I can see in the U.S., if there is Death Penalty in one state,it doesn't mean that criminals won't run somewhere else and do it. So, once again, there is no uniformity in this topic.
I think it is very difficult to discuss this and come to a definite conclusion, especially because there will alwys be examples of brutal of human beings which in the eyes of another human will always warrant taking his/her life away from him/her.
But after sayuing all of this, it doesn't meanI'm not interested in people's human rights.
JediBendu, nice to hear from you again. Good to see that you still have that streak of humor in an otherwise serious thread. I'm speaking ofhttp://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/drowned/dork.gif!

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Darth Fabulous@Jan 17 2003, 01:11 PM
I also think we need someone to become 'Darth Robert', so we can have a 'Rob and Fab' get together, sort of like Milli Vanilli. Fab, do you have dreadlocks by any chance?

Most definately not.
http://www.fabricemorvan.com/images/mvclos.jpg

I think 'Fab' is the one on the right...
That's just assuming that they always stand in the proper formation, following their name: 'Fab & Rob'

C'mon Darth Fab, give us a quick rendition of 'Girl You Know It's True' or 'Blame It On The Rain' .. please?

:roll:

[Whisper]

Didn't one of the OD recently?

[Darth Fabulous]

C'mon Darth Fab, give us a quick rendition of 'Girl You Know It's True' or 'Blame It On The Rain' .. please?

I'll pass on that one.

[Darth Fabulous]

By the way, I look nothing like either member of Milli Vanilli for the record.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Whisper@Jan 17 2003, 02:09 PM
Didn't one of the OD recently?
Yeah.. not sure which one though.
Very sad. Imagine being at the top... and then

[JediBendu]

Milli Vanilli are a perfect example of the *******isation the comes from capitalism - how many people bought those albums on good faith, while the record label knowingly sold them as fakes.

topic is STILL capital punishment:

But I think there they need that kind of thing. I can say that the more democratic a society becomes, the less acceptable CP becomes. But some peope will always advocate it.

in part I agree - as society advances, our savagery is [paradoxically] becoming more and pronounced. Coupled with an economic system that is not equiped to handle modern society, the view could be taken that we are in fact encouraging violent crime - "I have no problem killing a few people after they sack me from work - I won't have to worry about rent or where my next meal is coming from for the next 25 years".
but
part of our evolution has been the continual withdrawal from our beastial heritage, the death penalty represents (to me) either the movement back towards it, or a tether we maintain so we can never leave it.
As thinking beings we can make a choice to remain savages or rise above it and become more than we give ourselves credit for.

so what is the solution - is there a penalty that befits the crime of murder?
Our legal system (actually, America's legal system) is such that innocent people are wrongly accused, tried, committed and killed. That alone makes the death penalty unacceptable.
Perhaps a state of 'null brain activity' (eg Minority Report) or total VR immersion (eg Matrix) but either choices present us with the same moral dilema.

I go for a different track -

Society prepares the crime, the criminal performs it. - Henry Thomas Buckle

[JediBendu]

you'll find the 'source' for JediBendu's news and information

thanx for the link - I'll give it a read a bit later

[JediBendu]

And his concepts insist that all human endeavor, no matter how grand it claims to be, is really just a reflection of man's inner beastiality.

no, you've mis-interpreted

there are no facts, only interpretations - Nietzsche


The broad effects which can be obtained by punishment in man and beast are the increase of fear, the sharpening of the sense of cunning, the mastery of the desires; so it is that punishmment tames the man, but does not make him "better." - Nietzsche

Nietzche knew that we could rise above it and become "better", although I doubt he ever believed that it would ever happen.

Derida on the other hand makes an interesting observation:

...credit is given, by both sides, to the belief in a principle of pure equivalence between the damage and the reparation, between the wrong and the pain and the punishment, between a life taken and taking another life to compensate for the loss. Only within this logic can the principle of replacing that which is irreplaceable function: to believe in this is to “believe in a fictitious equivalence which does not exist but allows for this exchange”. This permits us to grant ourselves the right to a compensation “obtained as a psychical and symbolic refund for the damage suffered”.

which is why I asked about your utilitarian view - which puts a 'value' on each act or being as to how they benefit society [to increase happiness]

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Jan 17 2003, 10:12 PM
Milli Vanilli are a perfect example of the *******isation the comes from capitalism - how many people bought those albums on good faith, while the record label knowingly sold them as fakes.

Oh please bring up Milli Vanilli in the Capitalism thread! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif That would rock.

[Krogenar]

in part I agree - as society advances, our savagery is [paradoxically] becoming more and pronounced. Coupled with an economic system that is not equiped to handle modern society, the view could be taken that we are in fact encouraging violent crime - "I have no problem killing a few people after they sack me from work - I won't have to worry about rent or where my next meal is coming from for the next 25 years".

Please direct your comment about how the 'economic system is not equipped to handle modern society' to the capitalism thread. That's a very powerful claim; I'd love to hear how you can support that statement. But back to your discussion of human savagery.

Also, the idea that people commit murder for the sake of free meals for life is an excellent argument in favor of the death penalty! - despite my opinion that it's a very rare instance in which that occurs. If there's a death penalty, there will be fewer people wantonly murdering people for the chance of getting free chili for life, and living in a 4x8' cell. Nice argument! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

part of our evolution has been the continual withdrawal from our beastial heritage, the death penalty represents (to me) either the movement back towards it, or a tether we maintain so we can never leave it. As thinking beings we can make a choice to remain savages or rise above it and become more than we give ourselves credit for.

I see. So man has a savage heritage. I figured you would state that, so I made the following statement earlier about the beliefs of Nietzsche and his devotees (like yourself, I presume):

And his concepts insist that all human endeavor, no matter how grand it claims to be, is really just a reflection of man's inner beastiality.

But you corrected me JediBendu, by stating:
no, you've mis-interpreted.

How is that? All you've talked about in the passages above is the 'savagery of man' - didn't you just prove what I said?

Our legal system (actually, America's legal system) is such that innocent people are wrongly accused, tried, committed and killed. That alone makes the death penalty unacceptable.

But the American legal system is geared such that it would be far more likely to let 100 guilty man go free, than to prosecute an innocent man. That standard heightens as the severity of the penalty increases. So for capital cases, the standard is incredibly high. But again, JediBendu (*tips hat to Ferris for calling it earlier*) you are an idealist. If the system isn't perfect, then it cannot stand - never mind the necessity of the action - if it results in a single error, ever, it's invalid. That's too rigid a standard too work in reality. But let's read what your ideas were...

Perhaps a state of 'null brain activity' (eg Minority Report) or total VR immersion (eg Matrix) but either choices present us with the same moral dilema.

... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif ... :roll:

That makes no sense. You've admitted that some sort of high punishment is necessary, but have submitted ridiculous, unworkable ideas that aren't even within the realm of possibility! And then you point out that there's still a moral dilemma. You should just come to grips with the concept that capital punishment is considered by many to be a valid means of punishment, for very severe crimes, and that it's a choice best left to society. You are capable of criticizing the way the world works, JediBendu, but you have no alternatives. None that exist in reality, at least.

I go for a different track -
Society prepares the crime, the criminal performs it. - Henry Thomas Buckle

All of society is to blame? According to that idea, all men are pawns of society, unable to resist the traps and pitfalls that 'society' has created for him. That's a pretty bleak perspective. Give us an example of society 'preparing' a crime, to be performed by a criminal.

[Javen]

Well I haven't visited this thread before. *Javenlooks around and dives in head first in the pirahna's.


The Iraqi president said he had mobilized his army and drawn up a plan to counter any invasion by the tens of thousands of US soldiers, warplanes and ships now massing in the region.His speech came a day after United Nations inspectors in Iraq said they had found empty rocket warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents.

And Britain gave a cautious response to the find saying there should be "no rush to judgment".

But the White House has called the discovery "troubling and serious" and says it is evidence that President Hussein is not disarming.

Well, duh! They're chemical warheads!

[JediBendu]

if it results in a single error, ever, it's invalid.
single? no. a few times? maybe but probably not. hundreds of the years? the yes, it's invalid.

unworkable ideas that aren't even within the realm of possibility!

they are well within the realms of possibility and I mention simply to promote discussion which you have a hard time coming to grips with. Both are examples of removing their influence from society in a non-fatal way, although both present a new moral question - should we kill the brain and keep the body alive; should we kill the body and keep the brain alive?

According to that idea, all men are pawns of society, unable to resist the traps and pitfalls that 'society' has created for him.

you live a pretty comfortable life, a middle class upbringing, believe in the virtues of the system which has afforded the creature comforts you've become accustomed to and you strive to maintain - which I have no qualms with. However, there is a growing underclass which have not been so fortunate, have not had the same opportunities, and have little or no control over their future.
at the risk of sounding inpertinent - you ignore the desperate look on the homeless as you walk past them everyday, don't you? You pretend they don't exist (or at best will exist only until 'better times are found') because it doesn't fit in with your golden societal view.

That's a pretty bleak perspective.

society is pretty bleak with no sign it's going to improve style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif

Give us an example of society 'preparing' a crime, to be performed by a criminal.

only you K could blame me for someone else's quote style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
ok
Single mother with 2 kids, father abandoned them, both are in high school, 11th and 8th grade. The eldest is doing well, (but would do a lot better if they could afford text books) the youngest is having learning difficulties due to lack of discipline, both from scared teachers and a mother who has to work two minimum wage jobs just to pay rent, never mind the new sneakers the youngest wants more than life itself. The mother sees the eldest briefly when she get home around midnight, before she collapse in a chair and falls asleep. She knows she should be more of a mother for her boys but just can't find the time - she's gone by 5am each morning.
The youngest is becoming more and more deliquent, realising that he has no one to tell him what to do (not that the eldest cares) he decides to spend to spend longer amounts of time roaming the streets after dark. It's all very exciting for him, knowing he shouldn't but he get's a thrill each night.
One night he passes by a factory that makes prints banner adds and T-Shirt slogans and notices one of the side doors are open. He hesitates, never having actually broken into anywhere before. Then he thinks of the new Nike's that everyone is wearing and the decision is made - he enters the building.
Unfortunately the owner is still on the premises, putting in extra hours knowing that it saving a few extra dollars here and there could be the difference between his company succeeding and his company going under.
He hear's a noise as the child knocks over one of the material bolts as he stumbles through the dark.
The owner opens the door and pulls out his gun, he's never used it, and even now refuses to shoot anyone with it. Instead, he turns the gun over, intending to clobber the intruder, hopefully knocking him out until the police arrive. He dials 911 and quietly whispers 'there's an intruder, I'm going to investigate' leaving the line open so they can make a trace to his location. He sets off to find the intruder.
The kid in the meantime is experiencing the exhiliration that comes from too much adrenaline coursing through his tiny vains. He makes a promise to do this again the next night, but should probably make it a different factory - the police might be stupid, but the owner certainly won't leave a door open again.
The owner finally sees a shadow move about 30m away, his heart freezes. He's never done something this brazen before, perhaps he should have waited for the police. Never the less, he moves towards where he thinks the intruder is heading.
The kid suddenly realises that someone still might be in the building. Terrified, he should double check and jumps up on the nearest crate to better ascertain his surroundings.
The owner sees the shadow emerge not 2 metres away. His back is towards him, the intruder hasn't spotted him, it's now or never.
With all his strength, he swings the butt of the gun towards the intruder's head, it connects but brushes to the side. There is a satisfying 'thump' as the body hit's the ground, and for a kid on a crate, it's a long way to fall.
The owner notices the body start to move, attempting to regain his footing. He may try and attack him, he'd be really mad now, what weapons does he have, would he have a gun? Not taking any chances, the owner swings again, connecting with the intruders head, this time he hears a terrible wet crunching sound, as though someone had stepped on a beetle.
The child is killed instantly, the last blow crushing his skull, sending bone fragments into the cerrebrum below.
The owner starts to realise what the sound was, and only then starts to look at the corpse in front of him - it's way too small.
It's at that moment the police enter the factory - torchlights criss crossing the factory, moving closer towards where the owner and the now dead intruder lay.
The owner is stunned, he cannot move, let alone speak. He had just killed someone.
The police converge on the area, focusing the beams on the owner and dead child. There is nothing to say - they have already worked out what happened, the court case has already been heard.
What they see before them is a black man holding a bloodied gun, a white child lies in a pool of blood before him, his head a bloody pulp.
There is not hesitation, the police subdue the owner with the utmost of force permissable, and then a bit more just for good measure.
The press are all over the story and it makes headline news across the nation. Another example of the black man killing innocent white people, with no provocation, and no sign of remorse.
No amount of defense will change the verdict in a white man's court room. The sentence for a black man murdering a white child in cold blood is death.
The mother of the child has no idea what has happened, she has only just realised he child is missing. The first time she's made aware of it is when the producer's of COPS arrive on her door step, asking permission to set up cameras in her living room.

there's more in that than I have time to go into now, and I won't insult you or anyone else by asking the racial stereotype you had in mind when you started reading it.
contrived? yes. typcial? probably not. society? bloody oath.

[JediBendu]

But the White House has called the discovery "troubling and serious" and says it is evidence that President Hussein is not disarming.

Well, duh! They're chemical warheads!

actually, they're artillary warheads, they still haven't tested them yet.
finally some proof!
it's funny though - both sides are trying to play down the incident as not even a 'smouldering gun'.
'oops' you could almost hear Saddam saying style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
if there's ANY chemical residue, then it's on for young and old.

[Darth Fabulous]

there's more in that than I have time to go into now, and I won't insult you or anyone else by asking the racial stereotype you had in mind when you started reading it.
contrived? yes. typcial? probably not. society? bloody oath.

Actually I was thinking white kid and white owner when I was reading it.

There is not hesitation, the police subdue the owner with the utmost of force permissable, and then a bit more just for good measure.
The press are all over the story and it makes headline news across the nation. Another example of the black man killing innocent white people, with no provocation, and no sign of remorse.
No amount of defense will change the verdict in a white man's court room. The sentence for a black man murdering a white child in cold blood is death.

In the US those accused of crimes are judged by a jury of their peers, not receiving a jury that accurately represents the community and the accused is grounds for an appeal. Seeing as how the child was tresspassing, the "murder" was in self defense, an easy argument to make in this case. OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a mostly white jury and had more evidence against him than the man in your example.

[Angel Starmaster]

I agree. I think that, regardless of race, the owner in your example JB would've gotten off with little more than an involuntary manslaughter charge or something. He would serve minimal jail-time in that situation. In fact in my eyes the case is so clear cut, that I wouldn't even bother to call a lawyer, were it me in the owner's shoes; I'd represent myself! Yes, I am that confident in the American justice system. Innocent until proven guilty.

As for Capital Punishment, I say we do like George Carlin says; Take out about 100,000 square acres of land and fence in all nut-jobs with enough food and water for all of 'em. Let them duke it out. Then whoever is left standing at the end of it all, you take him, put him up on a pedestal and put a bullet between his eyes.

I'm kidding of course.
Actually, I'm against captial punishment. A quick death is too good for someone who does the unthinkable. I'd rather see these individuals have to deal with their crime for the rest of their lives. I.e. Put them in a cell, food, water, etc, and the only mental stimulation they have would be pictures of the people they hurt or killed. Video footage of their crime if there is any. That sort of thing. Unfortunately, it's not feasable with overpopulation and all.

You know I read somewhere that they were thinking of putting all deathrow convicts on a decommissioned Aircraft carrier and then just letting that function as a floating penal colony.

Then they turned around and called it "inhumane."
I do it for a living. They're right.

Speaking of which, this may be the last you all hear from me in a while. Hey, if I get KIA'd, can someone make a nice epitaph thread for me where people can say nice things about me?
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/skullwink.gif

[Whisper]

Well....um...I'm not going to ask. But....sure...Just log on and tell us when to do it, 'kay?

[Angel Starmaster]

Oh, sure. I'll just respond through the force. :angel:

[Krogenar]

if it results in a single error, ever, it's invalid.
single? no. a few times? maybe but probably not. hundreds of the years? the yes, it's invalid.

Hundreds of the years? What? I assume you mean 'hundreds' over the years? We just differ on that score. I think we should find the best system possible, and use it until a better system is discovered.

unworkable ideas that aren't even within the realm of possibility!
they are well within the realms of possibility and I mention simply to promote discussion which you have a hard time coming to grips with. Both are examples of removing their influence from society in a non-fatal way, although both present a new moral question - should we kill the brain and keep the body alive; should we kill the body and keep the brain alive?

I know what we should do! We should download their brains into a 'NeuronMapper' program, and reprogram them! Yeah! That's it! Sorry, but 'virtual reality immersion' and whatnot are not valid solutions. What should we do in the meantime, before such possibilities are invented? I can only imagine the VR world you'd force me to inhabit, for using unbleached toilet paper. I'd probably be living au naturale in some jungle. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

According to that idea, all men are pawns of society, unable to resist the traps and pitfalls that 'society' has created for him.

you live a pretty comfortable life, a middle class upbringing, believe in the virtues of the system which has afforded the creature comforts you've become accustomed to and you strive to maintain - which I have no qualms with.

How do you know I don't live in a cardboard box in New York City, and that I'm not on a computer in a library someplace? ... I'm upper class (lifts nose) my real name is Rutherford (pronounced Ruthaferd)... no, not really.

However, there is a growing underclass which have not been so fortunate, have not had the same opportunities, and have little or no control over their future.

Bleak, bleak, bleak! The 'homeless' in America (the vast majority of them - trust me, I know) are homeless mostly because they choose to be. I can only speak of the homeless in my own country, not those in other places - but most of the homeless people I've seen in New York City are overweight. These people usually have severe mental problems, and simply do not have the wherewithal to care for themselves properly, and so I have no qualms about helping them.

But I never give them money. More often, I ask if they'd like to have a sandwich. I offer to buy them food, and often, they ask (or demand) the money instead. One three occassions I've tried getting them to come with me to a nearby deli and choose something that they like. Again, they demand the money - even claiming that it would 'preserve their dignity' to hand the money to storekeeper. I refuse. They storm out of the deli, without any food. It's happened to me, and other people. If they were really hungry, they'd let me buy them food.

at the risk of sounding inpertinent - you ignore the desperate look on the homeless as you walk past them everyday, don't you? You pretend they don't exist (or at best will exist only until 'better times are found') because it doesn't fit in with your golden societal view.

In my opinion (and I'll risk sounding impertinent) YOU, JediBendu, have done more harm to these people, by assuming that they cannot succeed. You said that, 'they have little or no control over their future.' You've done them more injury than I have. You have reduced them to limp, helpless creatures - not humans who can take control of their lives.

My company employs many immigrants. Because of the industry I'm in, I need sewers: tailors, really. Most foreign countries offer training programs in sewing, since it can be easily taught, and ensures that their citizens will have some sort of skill with which to support themselves. Very few Americans, who are not immigrants, would be willing to sew for a living. It can be repetitive, dreary work. My sewers hail from Guyana, Ghana, Haiti, Ethiopia and Kenya. They all had the courage to leave everything they knew behind, and come to America. Some of them didn't know anyone in America, some had relatives. These were people, that while not homeless, were able to improve their situation. I've sponsored their citizenships, and welcomed them to my country. My great-grandparents came from Ireland and Sicily, so that only makes me a third generation American. My employees are treading the same path my great grandparents did, some 75 years ago or so. Their children have gone on to college, and become professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.), JediBendu, so please don't presume to lecture me on the whether America cares for its own. It does.

That's a pretty bleak perspective.
society is pretty bleak with no sign it's going to improve style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif

The only aspect of the world that makes me sad is the fact that some people like you, JediBendu, scorn the fruits of liberty (primarily economic freedoms) and instead side with ideologies that have consistently failed, and/or spawned despotic governments. But I'm confident that America will succeed. I think these espousals of socialism are really just an attempt to be seen as 'hip' or avante guard; 'Fight the Power!' and what not.

[Krogenar]

Give us an example of society 'preparing' a crime, to be performed by a criminal.
only you K could blame me for someone else's quote style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
ok

I know. It's rough when someone asks that you decrypt your pithy sayings. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Extraordinarily bleak situation posted by JediBendu goes... here.]

[Storeowner kills an intruder.]

there's more in that than I have time to go into now, and I won't insult you or anyone else by asking the racial stereotype you had in mind when you started reading it. contrived? yes. typcial? probably not. society? bloody oath.

First off, the fact that the child doesn't have a good home is irrelevant to his breaking and entering. Is it unfortunate that he was killed? Undoubtedly. But the business owner had every right to be in his place of business. Is the business owner responsible for the home life of that boy? No. Social standing does not necessarily have to precipitate criminality. Committing a crime is a choice, not an inevitability.

I contend that government is to blame in this situation. Here are a few actual examples, from my experience of the New York City social welfare system. If a woman has a child, she receives government assistance in the form of money. If she has a husband, she receives nothing. The liberals figured that a woman with a husband is in a better situation, and shouldn't need any help. This tiny rule however, has reduced the frequency of marriage among the poorest citizens. Why get married if it will cost you your welfare check? So, these women (trying to keep their children fed) settle for 'boyfriends' instead. And so, the government ends up subsidizing illegitimate children - paying these mothers more for each child they have out of wedlock. This goes back to my point about government being a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

The liberals wanted to help people, but their thinking (feeling, really) lacks depth, and is designed to assuage their consciences, rather than to actually help anyone. If they were really serious about helping, they'd think more, and feel less - and realize that the government is the not the instrument for social change.

QUESTION FOR JEDIBENDU: How could we have prevented this tragedy? Was the child's lack of a proper family the direct cause of his criminality? What steps should be taken to remedy this situation. How do we change society so that these sorts of crimes are not 'prepared' for unsuspecting citizens? What should be done?

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Angel Starmaster@Jan 19 2003, 03:56 AM
Speaking of which, this may be the last you all hear from me in a while. Hey, if I get KIA'd, can someone make a nice epitaph thread for me where people can say nice things about me?
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/skullwink.gif

My advice: Don't get killed.

It's worked for me..... so far. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif
You won't get killed! Fire some cruise missiles for me! Turn off the lights in Baghdad, just like last time. Seriously, Angel, be safe.

[JediBendu]

How do we change society so that these sorts of crimes are not 'prepared' for unsuspecting citizens? What should be done?

there is no single remedy, but it's nigh on impossible to even introduce one, let alone what is necessary

changing people's attitude is a start - I'm a little concerned about your's towards the homeless - I doubt anyone chooses to be homeless, and I find it incredulous that you would say such a thing. I do give to the homeless, both in cash and food. Buskers are compulsory (except the professional ones) - I just gave $1 not 5mins ago to a chic singing with a sign that said 'saving for guitar lessons' style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Do you guys have 'The Big Issue' in the US? It's a magazine sold by the homeless and is pretty well established both in the UK and Oz.
Another is a privatised welfare system, where the likes of Lockhead Martin run the states welfare by forcing recipiants into lower paid 'coupon' jobs, forcing people to work two jobs just to stay on welfare, thats if they can receive it.
Even the 'war on drugs' is exascerbating the situation- 90% of all crime is drug related. 'So just kill the smack heads' I hear you say?

Committing a crime is a choice, not an inevitability.

an unavoidable choice perhaps? unless you've been through the hell these people have, you will never understand.
You missed the whole point of the story. It was an example of a situation uncontrollable factors place two people in a position where a crime results.
Yes the death penalty angle was contrived - I was trying to bring in the fact that 50% of all CP cases have been black, the role of the media in drumming up fear [of the black man] in white urban america, and the racial intollerance that exists in your country.

JediBendu, so please don't presume to lecture me on the whether America cares for its own. It does.

funny enough I watch a doco about 3am last night on the changes to INS policies that were introduced in 96, whereby all asylum seekers are immediately detained and placed in detention centres, more often than not with the general population of civilian criminals, for periods that can stretch for years. Prisons are now building specific wings for INS detainees so they can profit from the internment. It sure does take care of it's own.
Don't worry, we have a similar policy here which has caused the gov no end of grief. I've mentioned our concentration camps before, but no one picked up on it.

But I'm confident that America will succeed. I think these espousals of socialism are really just an attempt to be seen as 'hip' or avante guard; 'Fight the Power!' and what not.

you've assumed I'm a socialist, I've never said anything of the sort, although I have said I'm a humanist and gave a bone for the Fabian society. must have missed it?
you can't fight the power, only subvert it

Sorry, but 'virtual reality immersion' and whatnot are not valid solutions.
they are valid solutions, but I put them there for discussion, not derission. You've also missed both Nietzsche's and Derida's (giants in existential philosophy) views on capital punishment - you may describe them as my pithy statements, but there from other human beings with mind's greater that you, I, perhaps this entire board's put together.

but to paraphrase someone who I'm assuming you idolise for his capitalist drive, the venerable Henry T Ford:

Capital Punishment as a cure for crime is equivalent to charity being a cure for poverty.

[JediBendu]

Actually, I'm against captial punishment. A quick death is too good for someone who does the unthinkable. I'd rather see these individuals have to deal with their crime for the rest of their lives.

I agree 100% - for some of these butchers, death is an easy way out.

Angel - positive energy quantum tunneling to you and your ship. don't get killed, I haven't had a chance to show you the chics in Brisbane yet style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[JediBendu]

The only aspect of the world that makes me sad is the fact that some people like you, JediBendu, scorn the fruits of liberty (primarily economic freedoms) and instead side with ideologies that have consistently failed, and/or spawned despotic governments.

they have failed because America has been instrumental in their failure.

[Das_Funked]

How could we have prevented this tragedy?

The whole thing need not have happened. It only happened because the kid was bored. Thats how most kids get in trouble, they roam around the streets at night with their friends being pains in the arse because they are bored. What needs to happen is programs for kids to get into, setup either by the government or organisations. Like boxing gyms and football clubs. We have places like this in Australia maintained by the Police and I'm sure they have stopped heaps of kids from living a life a crime. Get them off the streets, get them thinking about something else other then 'what window will I break tonight?'.

Was the child's lack of a proper family the direct cause of his criminality?

I don't think it was the sole reason, but it certainly had something to do with it. If his brother/mother were there for him, he probably wouldn't have commited the crime.

What steps should be taken to remedy this situation.?

How do we change society so that these sorts of crimes are not 'prepared' for unsuspecting citizens?

What should be done?

As I've stated above.

[Krogenar]

How do we change society so that these sorts of crimes are not 'prepared' for unsuspecting citizens? What should be done?

there is no single remedy, but it's nigh on impossible to even introduce one, let alone what is necessary

I'll ask again: what is your alternative? I suspect that you have none, and that your only real goal is self-righteous, 'hip' complaining.

changing people's attitude is a start - I'm a little concerned about your's towards the homeless - I doubt anyone chooses to be homeless, and I find it incredulous that you would say such a thing.

Your response doesn't surprise me. You're only concerned with the homeless because its stylish to do so. I offer them food - never money. And yes, many people on the street refuse offers of help. They refuse the food I offer them. There is current legislation in the works to give the government the right to take the children of homeless people away from them if they refuse government offers of free housing. That's right. Some of them (but not all of them) refuse free housing.

Study Indicates that Homeless May Choose 'Dignity' Over Shelter (http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/homeless/2002/msg00055.html)

And many of the people on the street have behavioral problems that effectively prelude any hope of them fending for themselves. We should help them.

I do give to the homeless, both in cash and food. Buskers are compulsory (except the professional ones) - I just gave $1 not 5mins ago to a chic singing with a sign that said 'saving for guitar lessons' style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

You give money? I never do. I only get them food. That 'chic' may not have been homeless. She may just be jobless, or making some extra cash.

Another is a privatised welfare system, where the likes of Lockhead Martin run the states welfare by forcing recipiants into lower paid 'coupon' jobs, forcing people to work two jobs just to stay on welfare, thats if they can receive it.

Oh, these poor people! Expected to wake up every morning, and show up on time to a job! Philistines! Fascists! ....Wait... that's what I do every morning!

Even the 'war on drugs' is exascerbating the situation- 90% of all crime is drug related. 'So just kill the smack heads' I hear you say?

No. I think all drugs should be legalized, but with a law that states that any harm you do to yourself will not be the responsibility of the state. Fried your brain doing crack? Don't ask the government for help. Hooked on heroin? Not the government's problem. Everyone has the freedom to do what they like to and with their bodies, but I'm not forced to pay taxes protecting them. Oh, and if you commit a crime (driving a car, murdering someone, etc.) while on drugs, that's not a legal excuse.

Committing a crime is a choice, not an inevitability.

an unavoidable choice perhaps? unless you've been through the hell these people have, you will never understand.

Everyone has that choice. I could walk into a Korean-owned bodega and decide to hold the place up. But I choose not to do so. But it's still a choice. It's not an unavoidable decision. And what's with this, 'if you haven't been through the hell ... you'll never understand.' Could you be more melodramatic?

You missed the whole point of the story. It was an example of a situation uncontrollable factors place two people in a position where a crime results.

How the hell did these children come into existence anyway? Magically? Did a stork deliver them? Binary fission? That mother made the decision to have those children. Unless she was raped, and even so, she could have had a federally funded abortion, if she chose to, or give them up for adoption, since she can't afford to care for them properly. Your view of these poor people completely strips them of any power to improve their lives - and that's patronizing, and degrading, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes the death penalty angle was contrived - I was trying to bring in the fact that 50% of all CP cases have been black, the role of the media in drumming up fear [of the black man] in white urban america, and the racial intollerance that exists in your country.

Once again, JediBendu, you've proven that you have little to no moorings to reality. Among African-Americans (as a group) there is a higher chance that one of them will be a criminal. If you take all criminals and divide them up into their races, whites make up the majority, since they are the majority of the population overall. But their frequency of committing a crime (compared to their overall population) is lower than that of African Americans. Statistically, black men are most likely to be murdered by ... another black man. Trying to make capital punishment into a racial issue is pathetic.

JediBendu, so please don't presume to lecture me on the whether America cares for its own. It does.

funny enough I watch a doco about 3am last night on the changes to INS policies that were introduced in 96, whereby all asylum seekers are immediately detained and placed in detention centres, more often than not with the general population of civilian criminals, for periods that can stretch for years. Prisons are now building specific wings for INS detainees so they can profit from the internment. It sure does take care of it's own.

Show me a source. Immigrants being imprisoned for years by America would be big, big news. Let's see your proof - if you have any.

Don't worry, we have a similar policy here which has caused the gov no end of grief. I've mentioned our concentration camps before, but no one picked up on it.

Australia has 'concentration camps' - are they gassing people? Once again, JB, show me the proof. I think that once you do, we'll research it, and discover that you're mistaken, once again.

you've assumed I'm a socialist, I've never said anything of the sort, although I have said I'm a humanist and gave a bone for the Fabian society. must have missed it?
you can't fight the power, only subvert it

Quick vote. Who here thought JediBendu was a socialist?

Sorry, but 'virtual reality immersion' and whatnot are not valid solutions.
they are valid solutions, but I put them there for discussion, not derission. You've also missed both Nietzsche's and Derida's (giants in existential philosophy) views on capital punishment - you may describe them as my pithy statements, but there from other human beings with mind's greater that you, I, perhaps this entire board's put together.

Yes, but their ideas are still a bunch of hooey. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif And 'virtual reality immersion' is NOT a valid (pounds the table, laughing) solution to criminal behavior. It's a charming theory or idea, sure, but our discussion focuses on real problems, in the real world.

but to paraphrase someone who I'm assuming you idolise for his capitalist drive, the venerable Henry T Ford:

Capital Punishment as a cure for crime is equivalent to charity being a cure for poverty.

I agree! I myself don't even believe in the death penalty. I think it does deter crime and it does have a place, but I personally have voted against it. But other states have the right to decide.

[Darth Fabulous]

Quick vote. Who here thought JediBendu was a socialist?

*raises hand*

The whole thing need not have happened. It only happened because the kid was bored. Thats how most kids get in trouble, they roam around the streets at night with their friends being pains in the arse because they are bored. What needs to happen is programs for kids to get into, setup either by the government or organisations. Like boxing gyms and football clubs. We have places like this in Australia maintained by the Police and I'm sure they have stopped heaps of kids from living a life a crime. Get them off the streets, get them thinking about something else other then 'what window will I break tonight?'.

I agree, and it sounds a lot like the YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs we have in the states. The only problem with the solution is that it requires children to have the desire to better themselves. A lot of children in those situations have learned to be helpless, and believe they are doomed to a life of poverty and crime.

[FerrisWiel]

No, I've had JB pegged as an "anarchist" for a while now.

--Ferris Wiel

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Jan 19 2003, 11:59 PM
The only aspect of the world that makes me sad is the fact that some people like you, JediBendu, scorn the fruits of liberty (primarily economic freedoms) and instead side with ideologies that have consistently failed, and/or spawned despotic governments.

they have failed because America has been instrumental in their failure.
More precisely, they failed because they could not compete with The West. They hemmorhage talented people, that flee their oppressive regimes, and come to America, where they can profit from their gifts, and so can America. That is why they failed. Socialist states could conceivably run forever, since failure is outlawed by the government. Which would be a shame, since those countries richly deserve to fail. As these regimes persist, so does the suffering of those unfortunate enough to be ruled by them.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by FerrisWiel@Jan 20 2003, 03:12 PM
No, I've had JB pegged as an "anarchist" for a while now.

--Ferris Wiel
Anarchy, even, might be preferable to living in North Korea - or any socialist state for that matter.

[heads off to invest in shotguns and canned food.]

[JediBendu]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banghead.gif

[Das_Funked]

Australia has 'concentration camps' - are they gassing people? Once again, JB, show me the proof. I think that once you do, we'll research it, and discover that you're mistaken, once again.

The government doesn't like to call them that, but that is practically what they are.

People who come here seeking asylum, they're locked in camps in the Aussie desert until there identity can be established, where they come from and if they a true refugees. This process can take years. In the meant time, they a going crazy being locked up for trying to seek a better life.
The children cut their wrists, the men jump on the razor wire trying to escape, they go on hunger strikes and sew up their lips.

Then after 3-4 years of bein locked up, they might be able to stay in Australia.

Is this fair?

[Das_Funked]

No. I think all drugs should be legalized, but with a law that states that any harm you do to yourself will not be the responsibility of the state. Fried your brain doing crack? Don't ask the government for help. Hooked on heroin? Not the government's problem. Everyone has the freedom to do what they like to and with their bodies, but I'm not forced to pay taxes protecting them. Oh, and if you commit a crime (driving a car, murdering someone, etc.) while on drugs, that's not a legal excuse.

By not helping them you are basically saying, 'let's just let them kill themselves'. These people need help so they should get help. Whether it's from the Governments or Private organisations doesn't matter. Just help them.

People like you think that because this person doesn't pay taxes, doens't have a job, doesn't contribute to anything, that they should just be wiped out because they are a burden on the 'good, hoenst, hardworking' people who pay their taxes, have jobs and contribute something to society.

And I think it's pathetic that you try and make yourself out as a caring person, when it's only to convince yourself that you care. But I see right through it.

That seems pretty heartless to me.

[FerrisWiel]

By anarchy I meant a romanticized anarchy, one devoid of violence and hierarchies.

--Ferris Wiel

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by FerrisWiel@Jan 21 2003, 08:57 AM
By anarchy I meant a romanticized anarchy, one devoid of violence and hierarchies.

--Ferris Wiel
(steals Ferris' computer, and runs off into the wilderness.)

Krogenar: "Yay for anarchy!"

(runs faster, as he notices Ferris pursuing him with a shotgun...)

Krogenar, yelling over his shoulder at Ferris: "This _IS_ better than living in an fascist-capitalist state, don't you think?"

(Ferris squeezes off two shots.)

[Krogenar]

Australia has 'concentration camps' - are they gassing people? Once again, JB, show me the proof. I think that once you do, we'll research it, and discover that you're mistaken, once again.

The government doesn't like to call them that, but that is practically what they are.

Practically what they are? Are they, or aren't they? Are the people starved? How many of them die in the camps? Are their bodies incinerated systematically? Did the Australia government force them into these camps, or did they enter of their own free will?

It's not a concentration camp, Funky, and you know it. My high-school history teacher's comb-over was practically a human rights violation. But wait... there are no facts, remember? Only perceptions. With that nugget of wisdom, the camps in North Korea aren't concentration camps... they're happiness density playgrounds! So when you're sent there (along with three generations of your family) for a bland political statement, for the rest of your life, choose to ignore the facts, and perceive it not as imprisonment, but as an enforced vacation! Yeah! I feel better already!

People who come here seeking asylum, they're locked in camps in the Aussie desert until there identity can be established, where they come from and if they a true refugees.

So, when they try to come into Australia, they are kept in 'camps' until the government determines who they really are, and where they actually come from. Wow. That is harsh. And they also try to confirm their stories about being refugees, eh? I suppose that these people could just not come to Australia, to avoid the inconven-, er, the injustice of being held in a camp.

This process can take years. In the meant time, they a going crazy being locked up for trying to seek a better life. The children cut their wrists, the men jump on the razor wire trying to escape, they go on hunger strikes and sew up their lips.

The sew up their lips. I see. Someone who'll sew their lips together probably shouldn't be running around Australia. They might scare the Aboriginals. (sp?)

Then after 3-4 years of bein locked up, they might be able to stay in Australia. Is this fair?

Yes. It is fair, and quite prudent.

[Krogenar]

No. I think all drugs should be legalized, but with a law that states that any harm you do to yourself will not be the responsibility of the state. Fried your brain doing crack? Don't ask the government for help. Hooked on heroin? Not the government's problem. Everyone has the freedom to do what they like to and with their bodies, but I'm not forced to pay taxes protecting them. Oh, and if you commit a crime (driving a car, murdering someone, etc.) while on drugs, that's not a legal excuse.

By not helping them you are basically saying, 'let's just let them kill themselves'. These people need help so they should get help. Whether it's from the Governments or Private organisations doesn't matter. Just help them.

I think that if people realize that there are consequences to stupidity, we will see a marked decrease in stupidity. However, if we constantly save people from being stupid, we are subsidizing stupidity, and can expect to experience more intense episodes of stupidity.

"People need help, so they should get help." That's a beautiful, but naive statement. But how can we help people in the best way possible? Sometimes its best to let someone suffer the consequences of their own actions. No one stuffed drugs down their throats. And I still think we should educate people about the stupidity of taking drugs. But it's still their choice, not mine. But I cannot be forced by law to bear the consequences of someone else's bad decision. And you can't make me Funky.

People like you think that because this person doesn't pay taxes, doens't have a job, doesn't contribute to anything, that they should just be wiped out because

Whoa, ease up Funky! There are lots of people who have jobs, and pay their taxes, who also use drugs. If they want to convert their entire lives into cocaine, and watch it disappear up their nostrils, that's their business. I'll try to convince them that it's a bad idea, but I can't handcuff them, or take away their liberty to be stupid.

they are a burden on the 'good, hoenst, hardworking' people who pay their taxes, have jobs and contribute something to society.

Why is that the people who blame everything on 'socety' contribute so little to it? Those who bring the least to the table, demand the greatest share. You say, 'honest, hardworking' Funky, with a sneer on your face, don't you? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

And I think it's pathetic that you try and make yourself out as a caring person, when it's only to convince yourself that you care. But I see right through it.

:roll: I am a caring person. Unlike most modern liberals, I care enough to look beyond the first few minutes of my charitable decisions. Some day (God willing) I'll have a son or daughter. And one day, they'll wail and cry at the breakfast table on a Saturday morning. They'll cry out that they want chocolate cake for breakfast, and refuse to eat the delicious, nutritious meal I've prepared. Now, as a father, I'm sure I'd want nothing better than to be a hero to my children. Just look at them, crying their little eyes out, it breaks my heart! If I give in to their request, and give them chocolate cake, I will be .... (looks resolutely into the distance, tossing his cape over his shoulder) .... Super Dad! Able to vanquish tasteless breakfasts, and deliver cakes! My children will cheer me, and (if they could) they would carry me about on their little shoulders. They would be happy in the immediate future, and I would be duly entered into the halls of truly heroic fathers by my children. But the long-term effects of eating cake for breakfast will begin to take its toll on my children. Growing fatter and more unruly by the day (all that sugar makes them hyperactive) they will end up worse off than if I had put their longterm happiness ahead of my short term desire for them to be happy.

Instead, I will be considered by my children to be a heartless, cruel father - unwilling to let them eat chocolate cake for breakfast - forbidding them to tattoo themselves - and other ridiculous demands. I will continue my gestapo, fascist ways by insisting that they study hard, unwilling to allow them to sink into the intellectual dreck of the modern school system. And I will demand that my daughter date a boy with a decent haircut. I am willing to allow them to hate me now, and love me later, when they discover that there was a reason for my fascism. For my children, I'll gladly play the role of 'the villain', if its in their best interests, ultimately.

That seems pretty heartless to me.

I know. When you're older, you'll understand.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Jan 21 2003, 12:59 AM
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/banghead.gif
Well... then what the h*ck are you, JediBendu? A communist, a socialist? What? And please, no long explanations of how you don't want to be pigeon-holed.

I'll declare my positions.

I'm a libertarian, a capitalist, and an American.

[FerrisWiel]

Krogenar, you big goober, I didn't mean I agreed with him, but he has, in not-so-clear terms:

1. Asked what's wrong with anarchy
2. Expressed disgust with both capitalism and totalitarianism
3. Provided a definition of anarchy contrary to what I was accustomed.

Now, like I said, I don't agree with his position, I'm just trying to clarify it...

Now give back my damn computer!

--Ferris Wiel

[Krogenar]

[A car speeds along the dry, dusty Australian outback. Inside the car, Krogenar looks in his rear view mirror, and then into his back seat, where Ferris' computer lies.]

[On a motorcycle, Ferris lets the air drag the neon green spikes of his mohawk back flat against his radiation-scarred head. Screaming in rage, he guns the throttle and gains speed, closing in on the car ahead of him.]

[Staring down the apocalyptic road ahead of him, Krogenar is distracted by a blinking red light, accompanied by a low, repetitive bleeping. Seeing that he is dangerously low on fuel, he non-chalantly shuts down the nitrous oxide overdive switch. His speed is reduced drastically. He jams both feet onto the brake and braces himself.]

[Ferris Wiel's motorcycle smashes into the rear end of Krogenar's car, sending him flying through that vehicle's rear window.]



Krogenar, you big goober, I didn't mean I agreed with him, but he has, in not-so-clear terms:

1. Asked what's wrong with anarchy
2. Expressed disgust with both capitalism and totalitarianism
3. Provided a definition of anarchy contrary to what I was accustomed.

Now, like I said, I don't agree with his position, I'm just trying to clarify it...

Now give back my damn computer!

--Ferris Wiel

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif Just funnin' ya Ferris. And in my own roundabout way, I'm trying to show how anarchy is... well, [i]anarchy. I'm a capitalist, and a libertarian. I thought you were just ridiculing the concept of a 'romanticized' anarchy and thought I'd do the same, in my own way.

And I could give you your computer back, but, this is anarchy! I take what I want, whenever I want, you'll have to kill me for it.

[JamesMadison]

The two of you are using the word deterence differently. JB, you are saying that the death penalty is not a deterent for other criminals, and statistics show you are right. JamesMadison was saying that the death penalty is a deterent for the individual who committed the crime. As much as you would like to, you can't really argue with that as the convict would be dead and committing a crime posthumously is rather difficult.


Thank you DF. You are exactly on point proving once again JB can't argue one issue or rather he has a very difficult time understanding exactly what the issue his opponent is arguing. JB is arguing general deterrence, which I have never even concerned myself, and I am arguing an individual is deterred if they are not around to commit the crime again, which is also true.

But I am not surprised to find JB once again comparing apples to oranges, trying to fit a square object into a circle opening.

So what your saying is they give them the death penalty so they can't commit a crime they might do? Are you for real?

DF do you ever actually think through your argument? Don't we incarcerate people for crimes committed in an effort to deter them from committing the crime again in the future but we do not actually know they will commit the crime? In other words we are incarcerating people and punishing them for the crime they committed but also detering them from committing future crimes they may commit. So it seems to me we do impose penalties to deter criminals from committing crimes they may commit and as a result I find no distinction and your reasoning insufficient to demonstrate to me how the imposition of the death penalty is a violation of human rights.

As I said, you are killing a man because he might commit a crime again. Is that how you sentence people in America? Convict them of crimes they might commit?

More insufficient reasoning. You are confusing two issues or concepts. There is the punishment phase and the deterrence element. The individual is incarcerated for committing the crime.

The reason for the incarceration is not only to punish them but deter them from committing the crime again. Do you understand this? Do you comprehend the difference between the two? So don't give me this silly b.s. about incarcerating people for crimes they might commit because this is just simply and plainly a foolish comment predicated upon one's inability to understand arguments.

The individual is incarcerated, punishment, for the crime committed.

They are placed in a jail cell, away from society, and substantially have their liberty deprived from them in an effort not only to punish them but to deter them from possibly committing the crime again.

You can't punish someone for crimes they have not commited. Your concept is flawed.

No the only flaw is your inability to understand incarceration has more than one purpose. It is to punish and deter the criminal from committing the crime. I would suspect that after my few posts and Darth Fabulous' additional post this point should have been illuminated by now.

[Das_Funked]

The individual is incarcerated, punishment, for the crime committed.

Atleast we agree on this.

In other words we are incarcerating people and punishing them for the crime they committed but also detering them from committing future crimes they may commit.

First of all, you have to prove that they will commit another crime. I almost laughed when I read that.

No the only flaw is your inability to understand incarceration has more than one purpose. It is to punish and deter the criminal from committing the crime.

Wrong again. Let's look at what the word 'Correctional' actually means in the context of prisons.

Correctional

(1) Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve.

(2) The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.

Gaols have more than one purpose, I agree. They are to punish the offender for the crime commited and to rehabilitate the offender. My last point is where our opinions conflict.

[Whisper]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Jan 22 2003, 04:12 AM
In other words we are incarcerating people and punishing them for the crime they committed but also detering them from committing future crimes they may commit.

First of all, you have to prove that they will commit another crime. I almost laughed when I read that.


I don't remember my point...Move along, move along...heh....

I think I'll go back to just making examples to illustrate JMad's positions an arguements....Like the Nuremburg Trials one...

[Das_Funked]

Are their bodies incinerated systematically? Did the Australia government force them into these camps, or did they enter of their own free will?

They are incarcerated as soon as they arrive in the country.

Yes, the government force them in to these camps. Do you think they entered on their own free will?

But wait... there are no facts, remember?

Actually when the UN came in to inspect the camps about a year ago they found that they were a violation of the detainee's human rights. So, yes there is proof.

So, when they try to come into Australia, they are kept in 'camps' until the government determines who they really are, and where they actually come from. Wow. That is harsh. And they also try to confirm their stories about being refugees, eh?

I don't dispute the process, but when kids are born and raised in this environment and live in these facilities for years, I can understand why they would go crazy. Wouldn't you?

The sew up their lips. I see. Someone who'll sew their lips together probably shouldn't be running around Australia.

I think you and little johnny howard would be the best of mates.

[Das_Funked]

Sometimes its best to let someone suffer the consequences of their own actions.

The consequences usually involve being found in an alley behind a dumpster 5 days after you overdose.

But I cannot be forced by law to bear the consequences of someone else's bad decision. And you can't make me Funky.

What? Are there laws that force you 'to bear the consequences of someone else's bad decision'? If there are I would like to hear about them.

[Krogenar]

Are their bodies incinerated systematically? Did the Australia government force them into these camps, or did they enter of their own free will?

They are incarcerated as soon as they arrive in the country. Yes, the government force them in to these camps. Do you think they entered on their own free will?

Wait... how did these people get to Australia in the first place? Is the Australian government going on safari in distant lands, netting these people, and then dragging them to Australia? No! These people come to Australia of their own free will! And they know that when they try to enter, there will be a period of time in which they will be detained, in order to be sure that they are not a threat to the citizens of Australia. If they can't be inconvenienced, then they shouldn't go to Australia.

But wait... there are no facts, remember?

Actually when the UN came in to inspect the camps about a year ago they found that they were a violation of the detainee's human rights. So, yes there is proof.

FACT: The United Nations Council on Human Rights recently elected Libya to head the council. You all remember Libya, don't you? The oppressive regime led by Omar Qaddaffi? He engineered the terrorist bombing of a commercial airliner a few years back. The United Nations is a colossal, worthless collection of idiots. If they can elect Libya to be in charge of the human rights council, then I don't consider them to be an authority on the subject. Show me an article, Funky, in which the U.N. makes this statement about Australia.

So, when they try to come into Australia, they are kept in 'camps' until the government determines who they really are, and where they actually come from. Wow. That is harsh. And they also try to confirm their stories about being refugees, eh?

I don't dispute the process, but when kids are born and raised in this environment and live in these facilities for years, I can understand why they would go crazy. Wouldn't you?

People live in prison for years, and don't sew their faces shut. Trust me, it's true. And still, you've shown me no proof that this condition even exists.

The sew up their lips. I see. Someone who'll sew their lips together probably shouldn't be running around Australia.

I think you and little johnny howard would be the best of mates.

I don't know who 'Johnny Howard' is, but I assume he's a leader in Australia you don't like. He's probably just like Hitler, right? :roll:

[Krogenar]

Sometimes its best to let someone suffer the consequences of their own actions.

The consequences usually involve being found in an alley behind a dumpster 5 days after you overdose.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/eh.gif ... which has exactly what to do with the discussion? Not every consequence is fatal.

But I cannot be forced by law to bear the consequences of someone else's bad decision. And you can't make me Funky.

What? Are there laws that force you 'to bear the consequences of someone else's bad decision'? If there are I would like to hear about them.

Why should I pay for someone else's rehabilitation? If I choose to do so, fine - that's my choice. But when people who consistently make bad decisions get a free ride from the rest of 'society', then yeah, I end up paying the consequences. My medical expenses go up because someone has to pay for all this altruism. Society at large tries to help these people by saving them from the consequences of their actions, but all we're doing is enabling them.

[JamesMadison]

Wrong again. Let's look at what the word 'Correctional' actually means in the context of prisons.

Correctional

(1) Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve.

(2) The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.

Gaols have more than one purpose, I agree. They are to punish the offender for the crime commited and to rehabilitate the offender. My last point is where our opinions conflict.

Das Funked when was the last time you had a Criminal Justice class or class in Criminology? What text did you consult, Webster's dictionary?

You seem to think that since Webster's dictionary, or whatever dictionary text you consulted, defines "correctional" in a particular way means this is exactly how they are intended to operate in society. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is analogous to say that the word "equality" as defined in the dictionary is how it must work in society. This is of course blatantly wrong because "equality" is most certainly not implemented in a manner consistent with its definition.

Why don't you pull your head out of a dictionary and stick it in a Criminal Justice book or Criminology book and each will state affirmatively one purpose for incarceration is to deter the criminal from committing the crime again. I have two texts at home one title Criminology and the other American Criminal Justice System and both of them state one of the purposes for incarceration is "deterrence". Incarceration is an effort to reduced their ability to commit the crime again.

Imprisoning the defendant is not necessary for rehabilatory goals as the programs and processes in prisons designed to rehabilitate occur outside prisons and individuals placed on probation for committing felonies go through these programs.

So what exactly is the purpose for incarceration if one of the purposes can be achieved outside of prisons? Well one is to punish the individual and the other is to deter the individual from committing the crime.

So while you are laughing you may want to come to terms with what the authority has to say on this issue. Incarceration is to deter the defendant from committing the crime again. I have never found anyone who thought it was humorous to have their point contradicted by mainstream authority. Like cheering at your own funeral.

[kopernikuz]

Well put, JM.

How can you argue that incarceration does NOT deter? That's the strangest argument I've ever seen.

Though it's frowned upon by some circles these days, when I was a kid I got spanked for doing something bad. The spanking was a punishment for the deed, but also a deterrence against my doing the deed again. I didn't want to get spanked again. I didn't want the punishment again... the punishment helped deter a repeat offense.

If one is incarcerated for a crime, it is to punish him for the crime... that punishment also serves as a deterrent from him committing the crime again. Once you've been to jail, you don't want to come back, do you?

How is this not obvious?

[Krogenar]

I agree with JM and Kopernikus. Incarceration acts as both a punishment (restriction of personal liberty) and as a deterrent (who want to go back to jail, a second time?) I have to admit to not understanding Funky's position.

[Whisper]

Well for the "Why would they want to go back" question...

Lessee-Free Food...Room and Board...Weight Machines...

In certain cases they get out, especially after a loooong sentence, and find they can't adjust. *shrug* I think it's a cop out, but I was raised differently.

[JediBendu]

How can you argue that incarceration does NOT deter? That's the strangest argument I've ever seen.

we're not - we're arguing that Capital Punishment is in no way a detterent for violent crimes.
DF posted stats but they have (again) been ignored. Which I suppose will be indicative of JM's legal career - selective ignorance must be utter bliss for you.

General Death Penalty Stats - rates and numbers (http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/death/stats.html)

DF's original link (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm)

More stats - error in decisions, counter arguements - good link (http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/bldpstats.htm)

Detterence falacy link - studies, state and country comparison - great link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html)

put the links up for fun as I know you'll just ignore them

[JediBendu]

What text did you consult, Webster's dictionary?

Webster's is NOT a dictionary - it's classified as a Book of Words, even then it's full of shocking spelling mistakes style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[JediBendu]

Why should I pay for someone else's rehabilitation? If I choose to do so, fine - that's my choice. But when people who consistently make bad decisions get a free ride from the rest of 'society', then yeah, I end up paying the consequences.

it's the responsibility of society to wear the cost of it's mistakes.
why bother with this line of thought? you have no concept of morality on this issue (methinks it's the capitalist in you).
I've quoted the opinions of great minds on this but you dismiss them as 'pithy' statements, which shouldn't surprise me I suppose.
even your capitalist god Henry Ford doesn't agree with it.
however, if you can stomach a higher morality than you're used to, I'll paraphrase Dostoesvsky a little.
He's of the opinion that if the state chooses to carry out an execution for a criminal act, every member of that state is responsible for that execution, in effect, they are carrying out the execution themselves. It is therefore reasonable (and logical) to charge each member of the state with murder, and execute them accordingly.

(apologies for anyone who picked up such a blatant gaffe in an earlier post - oops)

[JediBendu]

The United Nations Council on Human Rights recently elected Libya to head the council. You all remember Libya, don't you? The oppressive regime led by Omar Qaddaffi? He engineered the terrorist bombing of a commercial airliner a few years back. The United Nations is a colossal, worthless collection of idiots. If they can elect Libya to be in charge of the human rights council, then I don't consider them to be an authority on the subject. Show me an article, Funky, in which the U.N. makes this statement about Australia.

DF - pretty damn sure Krogenar is Pauline Hanson, at the very least he's ate fish and chips in her shop style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[JediBendu]

Well... then what the h*ck are you, JediBendu? A communist, a socialist? What? And please, no long explanations of how you don't want to be pigeon-holed.

human

[Darth Fabulous]

Originally posted by JediBendu@Jan 23 2003, 12:06 AM
Well... then what the h*ck are you, JediBendu? A communist, a socialist? What? And please, no long explanations of how you don't want to be pigeon-holed.

human
Wow, clever retort.

[Das_Funked]

Show me an article, Funky, in which the U.N. makes this statement about Australia.

Here you go Krog. BBC.com (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2165661.stm)

People live in prison for years, and don't sew their faces shut. Trust me, it's true. And still, you've shown me no proof that this condition even exists.

Here you go again. CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/01/27/aust.detainee.suicide/index.html)

[Das_Funked]

... which has exactly what to do with the discussion? Not every consequence is fatal.

I was just pointng out the consequences which you try to ignore because it's doesn't fit in with your perfect little world.

[Das_Funked]

I don't know who 'Johnny Howard' is, but I assume he's a leader in Australia you don't like. He's probably just like Hitler, right?

His the PM of Australia.

I wouldn't compare him to Hitler because I respect Hitler more. (And no, I'm not racist or have anything against Jews etc.)

[Das_Funked]

How can you argue that incarceration does NOT deter? That's the strangest argument I've ever seen.

Easily. For the past 6 years the prison population has risen 3.6% annually. Therefore, more people are in gaol then before and it backs up my argument that deterence doesn't work.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/incrt.gif

This is from Here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm)

Also, 2 in 3 criminals that are sentenced under death have prior felony convictions. While 1 in 12 have prior homicide convictions.

From Here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm)

[Das_Funked]

Why don't you pull your head out of a dictionary and stick it in a Criminal Justice book or Criminology book and each will state affirmatively one purpose for incarceration is to deter the criminal from committing the crime again. I have two texts at home one title Criminology and the other American Criminal Justice System and both of them state one of the purposes for incarceration is "deterrence". Incarceration is an effort to reduced their ability to commit the crime again.

Ok, now you've told everyone what the text book says, what do you think? Do you think that deterence works? I don't and I have statistics to back me up. Instead of sitting there and telling us what other people think, what do you think?

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Jan 23 2003, 02:21 AM
How can you argue that incarceration does NOT deter? That's the strangest argument I've ever seen.

Easily. For the past 6 years the prison population has risen 3.6% annually. Therefore, more people are in gaol then before and it backs up my argument that deterence doesn't work.

[Also, 2 in 3 criminals that are sentenced under death have prior felony convictions. While 1 in 12 have prior homicide convictions.

From Here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm)
The argument earlier was that the point of incarcerating someone does not include deterrence from committing further crimes, I argue that that statement is false. The purpose IS to punish AND deter... I did NOT argue that it works 100% of the time.

The statement was made that "How do you punish someone for something they didn't do yet." which I was referring to. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard as the use of the word deterrence has nothing to do with punishing them for future crimes, it has to do with punishing them for CURRENT crimes in the hopes that they will not do them again.

Regardless of the statistics, deterrence IS a purpose of incarceration. Whether it works or not is a change of argument. I was simply arguing that it IS the purpose.

[Das_Funked]

This whole discussion came about from another discussion about the Death Penalty (DP).

Someone stated that the DP is supposed to deter a prisoner from killing again. I stated that you need to prove that the prisoner will kill again or else you ARE punishing them for crimes they haven't commited. Unless its to deter other criminals from commiting crimes worthy of the DP, but then that is false, because it simply doesn't deter them.

I think we got a little side-tracked in this discussion. We moved from the purpose and moralty of the DP to the purpose of Gaols.

[kopernikuz]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Jan 23 2003, 08:09 AM
This whole discussion came about from another discussion about the Death Penalty (DP).

Someone stated that the DP is supposed to deter a prisoner from killing again. I stated that you need to prove that the prisoner will kill again or else you ARE punishing them for crimes they haven't commited. Unless its to deter other criminals from commiting crimes worthy of the DP, but then that is false, because it simply doesn't deter them.

I think we got a little side-tracked in this discussion. We moved from the purpose and moralty of the DP to the purpose of Gaols.
Well, I think it's impossible to say whether or not the death penalty deters other criminals from commiting the same acts... because there's no way to measure or tell how many people who have considered or would commit the acts, do NOT because they do not wish to suffer the consequences.

[Das_Funked]

Deterence does not work. Over the last 30 years the number of people given the DP has risen and the number of people executed has risen. What other evidence do you need?

[kopernikuz]

You can't support the argument that deterrence doesn't work, just as I can't support that it does. Why? Because the only evidence you are stating is who it has NOT worked on. That's like the results of a poll that George Bush is the best president ever, and the only person you polled was George Bush. Without the supporting statistics of how many it HAS deterred (which is pretty much impossible to quantify, because who knows?) you can't say one is larger than the other. Not that your points on the DP are invalid... but the argument that it does or doesn't deter is moot.

What the statistics DO show infallibly to me is a growing lack of concern about consequences in our society... a growing lack of morals and ethics... and a growing population of people who no longer value human life. And it's not just the criminals...

[Krogenar]

How can you argue that incarceration does NOT deter? That's the strangest argument I've ever seen.

we're not - we're arguing that Capital Punishment is in no way a detterent for violent crimes.
DF posted stats but they have (again) been ignored. Which I suppose will be indicative of JM's legal career - selective ignorance must be utter bliss for you.

There are two definitions of 'deterrence' that we're talking about here. On the one hand, there's deterrence of the individual that committed the crime. And then there's general deterrence, which is what I think you and Funky are discussing. General deterrence is when other people, considering committing the same crime, see how others have been caught and punished (in this case, executed), and decide not to commit the crime.

Capital punishment deters (undoubtedly) the ability of those being executed to commit further crimes. They are dead. They are capable only of drawing flies, and the anguished sobs of liberals.

I'm not yet convinced that capital punishment deters potential murderers. I think it could be argued either way. My own opinion is that most pre-meditated murderers, who are rare I think, are also incredibly stupid. Yes, you have the occassional Claus von Bulow, or serial murderers, but most premed murderers are probably too stupid to weigh the consequences of their actions against possible punishment. Again, just my opinion. There could be a case made that executing the murderer gives some sense of closure to the family members of those murdered. It would be hard to imagine someone I love, rotting in the ground, while their killer watches cable television in jail.

DF's statistics were cited with no source for their numbers. I can make up any bit of information I like, create a pie chart, etc. - does that make it accurate?

put the links up for fun as I know you'll just ignore them

Oh no, I'll visit each one. Let's hope that you cited some sources that are credible. How's the 'CounterHeg' website? Have they posted any breaking news lately, from the basement of 'Lou's Hardware'? :roll: I'll vist the links later, and see if they're credible. If not, you'll wish I ignored them.

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Das_Funked@Jan 23 2003, 09:24 AM
Deterence does not work. Over the last 30 years the number of people given the DP has risen and the number of people executed has risen. What other evidence do you need?
Oh, we need plenty more.

To claim that since the number of people executed has risen, and therefore that the DP does not deter people does not follow logically. You're not exactly following the scientific model, there, Funky.

Any single number is statistically irrelevant, unless its placed in the context of other numbers. I could declare that 50% of all people that I polled said that they were sexually attracted to rodeo clowns. ... wow! That's a startling discovery, who knew that rodeo clowns could be so sexy?

I only polled two people: both of them were rodeo clowns themselves. So is this statistic 'real'? Yes, it is. I haven't lied. It is absolutely true that a whopping 50% of those polled said they would like to do it 'clown style'. But the statement itself is deceptive, or at least, it doesn't tell me the whole story. Kopernikuz also made an excellent point earlier:

Without the supporting statistics of how many it HAS deterred (which is pretty much impossible to quantify, because who knows?) you can't say one is larger than the other.

How can we quantify something... that didn't happen? You can't prove a negative. Supporters of gun rights often run into the same problem. They contend that the right to own a gun should be protected because it saves lives and deters crime. But how can we prove that? We can show statistically each time someone defends themselves using a gun, but what about the times in which no confrontation occurred? A criminal suspected that the person might have a gun, and decided to seek easier prey. How do you quantify that? How would you quantify when someone thinks, "I'm gonna kill that guy, he- hey, wait - we have the death penalty in this state! ..... aw, forget it."

[Krogenar]

Originally posted by Darth Fabulous+Jan 23 2003, 02:00 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Fabulous @ Jan 23 2003, 02:00 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-JediBendu@Jan 23 2003, 12:06 AM
Well... then what the h*ck are you, JediBendu? A communist, a socialist? What? And please, no long explanations of how you don't want to be pigeon-holed.

human
Wow, clever retort.[/b][/quote]
*sent reeling through time and space*

... but not really.

I suppose the rest of us, who don't share your views on economics, society, etc. - we may not be human. Which is very interesting, when you take a gander at the concentration camps in North Korea, or the torture chambers in Iraq. You claim to not be a socialist JB, but you defend these regimes. So what's the deal?

[Krogenar]

In America, the only corporal punishment is the death penalty. There are no whippings, or beatings, or mutilations as punishment. So, in order to see if the DP could really be a deterrent, let's look at some places in the world where corporal punishment is commonplace.

Let's take Saudi Arabia, for example. Corporal punishment is a way of life. If you steal bread, there's no court of law, no due process, no miranda rights. They just march you up to a public (public!) stage, and lop the offending limb off. For the rest of your life, people can take one look at you, and know that you're a thief. Or were a thief. If you possess drugs in most Islamic countries, they put you to death. Again, there's very litt